Military Sudies in Medievel Europe - Papert ofthe “Medieval Europe Brugge 1997’ Conference ~ Volume 1
Introduction
In studying Irish medieval warfare the bow and
arrow is of particular interest for many reasons. Its,
by far the most frequently represented weapon in the
archaeological record and unlike other weapons it
tends to oceur in datable contexts on excavated sites.
‘This is largely accidental, beceuse bows and arrows
‘were of little monetary value and easily broken and
Jost, but the fortunate result is that a more compre-
hensive and reliable archaeological study is possible
for the bow and arrow than for any other medieval
‘weapon. There is also a greater wealth of useful his-
torical information available than for othe: weapons,
‘of medieval Ireland. Thus itis possible not only to
study the bow and arrow as archacological artefacts,
butto place them in their natural context, which is the
history of warfare, A study of the history of the
‘weapon reveals that itis particularly appropriate, and
not entirely accidental, that the bow and arrow is so
well represented in the archacolagical record of
‘medieval Ireland. There is probably no other period
in which the weapon was of comparable military
mportance,
Historical information thus adds greatly to the
value of an archaeological study of hows and arrows.
The converse is equally true, however. Military
tory, not surprisingly, is largely written by
using documentary sources, but even the present
limited study demonstrates that archaeological anal-
ysis of the actual technology of warfare can enrich
‘and, on ozcasion, be a corrective to received theories
of military history.
‘The Hiberno-Norse period (c.800-1169)
‘The bow was been used in Ireland in the Neolithic
and carly Bronze Age periods, but the practice of
archery seems to have declined in the later prehistoric
period. There is no definite evidence for the use of
the bow in Ireland between the early Bronze Age and
the Early Christian period, ic. ¢.1500 BC to 800 AD.
Andrew Halpin
Military Archery in Medieval Ireland:
Archaeology and History
The Vikings, it seems, must be credited with the
reintroduction of the bow and arrow to Ireland
During the Viking petiod the bow was widely used
both in Scandinavia itself and among Scandinavian
settlers in many parts of Europe (Hardy 1986, 28-30;
Bradbury 1985, 23). The use of the bow by the
Vikings in Ireland is attested above all by bows and
hundreds of arrowheads discovered during recent
excavations in Dublin, Waterford end Limerick, in
contexts of the 10th to 12th centuries. But documen
tary evidence is also reasonably plentiful. Indeed the
Inish word for a bow, bogha, is 2 Norse loan-word
{although curiously enough the word for an arrow,
saiget, may be an earlier borrowing from the Letin
sagita). References to Viking archery first oveur in
9th century annalistic entries, and Irish narrative texts
also provide evidence for Norse archery. The author
of an early 12th century text Cogad Gaedel re
Gallaib, describing the weapons of the Norse at the
battle of Clontarf (1014), mentions before any others
their “sharp, swift..barbed (frithbaceanacha)... mur
derous, poisoned arrows (saigti” and their “polished,
yellow-shining bots (oogada biathi blabuidi)” (Todé”
1867, 159-161).
Arrowheads
‘Archeological excavations in Dublin have pro:
aced hundreds of arrowheads from contexts of the
Hiberno-Norse period, ie. early 10th to late 12th cen:
‘tury (ig. 1).
‘The Dublin arrowheads can be said to feature
three main blade forms: (1) leaf-shaped or shouldered,
(2) triangular, sometimes with barbs, and (3) anarrow,
solid spike-like blade. Each of these blade forms
occurs in both tanged and socketed fo-ms, producing
six distinct arrowhead types (Types 1-4, 6-7). A
seventh type (Type 5), although it could be consid-
cred a triangular bladed form, isin reality quite dit-
ferent and maust be regarded as a separate type. As
regards the relative popularity of these arrowhead
‘types, the overall proportions (regardless of period)
a aA. Halpin
GROUP 1
TaNGED
=—_
sockETED
Fig. 1. - Typology of Hiberno-Norse period arrowheads from Dublin
reveal Type 7 to be by far the most common type
with $2% of the total, followed by Types 1 (15%), 6
(13.5%), 2 (0%) and 4 (6%). Types 3 and S are rare
forms, at 2.5% and 2% respectively (Chart 1).
Prevalence of arrowhead types
In view of the historical and archaeological evi-
dence that archery was essentially unknown in Tre-
Jand until its reintroduction by the Vikings, one of the
most interesting things about the Dublin arrowhead
assemblage is that the typically Scandinavian tanged
oe
8
forms (ie. Types 1, 3 and 6), while present, are far
from being dominant. Together they eccount for no
more than 31% of the total assemblage. A further
feature of the Dublin assemblage isthe decline in the
representation of these Scandinavian-derived tanged
types, from the 10th to 12th centuries
‘The Scandinavian forms represent 26% of the total
assemblage of arrowheads from 10th century contexts
(Chart 2), but this falls to 28% in the 11th century
(Chart 3) and 32% in the 12th century (Chart 4)
This decline is particularly marked in the case of
Type 1, which could be described as the Viking
arrowhead type par excellence, and is the most com-
(Chart 1, - Dublin arrowheads, Hiberno-Norse
period: Proportions of types (hy percentage of
total)Military Archery in Medieval Ireland: Archaeology and History
Chart 2.- Dublin arrowheads, 10th century:
Proportions of ppes (by percentage of otal).
‘mon arrowhead type found on Viking-period sites in
Scandinavia. In Dublin, Type 1 is (along with Type
7) the mostcommon arrowhead type in the 10th cen-
tury, with 32% of the total, Indeed, in the first half of
the 10th century it accounts for over 60% of the
(admittedly small) total. The popularity of Type 1
falls dramatically, however, to 12.5% in the | Ith cen-
tury and 7% in the 12th century.
Chart3.- Dublin arrowheads, Ih eontry
Proportions oftpes (by percentage of oral)
unlikely but other sources of inspiration are difficult
to identify. Theoretically, the most likely source of
influence iscontemporary Anglo-Saxon England, but
the known assemblage of Anglo-Saxon arrowheads
is extremely small (Manley 1985) and while forms
similar to Type 2 are common, the other socketed
[3
Chart 4, - Lublin arrowheads, 12th century
0 ¢.1170): Proportions of types (by per-
centage of total).
(=———
| »
dhe will
‘The implication that Scandinavian influence in
the Dublin arrowhead assemblage declined steadily
from the 10th century onwards is, pethaps, not sur
prising. What is surprising, however, is the appar-
ently low level of Scandinavian influence even in the
10th century. The majority of Dublin arrowheads are
of forms which, it seems, were not commonly used in
‘Scandinavia. Indigenous Irish development seems
—
a 88
oe
forms, Types 4 and 7, are not well represented.
Arrowheads of Types 4 and 7 were widely used by
the Normans, but their popularity in Dublin can
hardly be attributed entirely to Norman influence
since it predates the Norman conquest of England.
terms of popularity, Type 7 forms a striking contrastFig. 2.- Bow from Ballinderry crannog, Co. Westmeath (after Hencken 1935-37)
to Type 1. This type accounts for 32% of the total in
the 10th century, although it is present only from the
middle of that century. Inthe 11th and 12th centuries
it is by far the most common type, at 58.5% in the
1ith century, falling slightly to 52.5% in the 12th
century.
Funetion
A particularly interesting issue is the functions
of the arrowhead types, specifically the question of
whether they were used for warfare or hunting. The
spike-like blades of Types 6 and 7 are clearly desig-
ned to penetrate body armour and these armour-
piercing types make up 65.5% of the total, The rare
Type S, which represents only 2% of the total, is
interpreted as an incendiary arrowhead and thus
should also be classified as military in function. The
other types, with leaf-shaped or triangular blades,
could have been used either for warfare or hunting
but there are grounds to suggest that a considerable
proportion of them were also intended for military
use. For instance, the relative frequency patterns of
Types | and 7 suggest that Type 1 was effectively
replaced by Type 7 from the mid-10th century
‘onwards. This would imply that Type 1 was also
substantially military in function. Overall, it can
safely be argued that at least 70-80% of the Dublin
arrowheads are definitely military in function, while
the number that can definitely be classified as hunt-
ing arrowheads is probably little more than 5%.
‘These statistics are confirmed by similar propor-
tions in the second largest Irish arrowhead assem-
blage, from another Hiberno-Norse town at Water-
ford (Halpin 1996) and they strikingly demonstrate
the essentially military nature of Viking archery in
Ireland.
Armour
The prevalence of armour piercing arrowheads in
these assemblages clearly raises questions about the
use of armour in Hiberno-Norse Ireland. Itisparticu-
larly interesting that armour piercing arrowheads first
become common in Ireland in the second half of the
10th century, at almost precisely the period when the
‘wearing of chain mail armour seems to have become
more common among Anglo-Saxon warriors in Eng-
land (Brooks 1978, 87-93). In contemporary Irish
sources armour seems to mark a significant differ-
ence between Irish and Viking, with the consistent
suggestion thatthe Irish did not wear armour, while
the Viking did. Both annalistic and narrative texts,
frequently refer to coats of mail and helmets wom by
the Vikings, and contrasts are often drawn between
the mailclad Vikings and the unarmoured Irish
Indeed, in two early 12th century tents, Cogad
Gaedhel re Gallaibh (Todd 1867, 53, 67-69) and
Cathreim Cellachain Chaisil (Bugge 1905, 65-66,
102-03), Irish military failures are specifically attri
uted to the ineffectiveness of their weapons against
the armour of the Vikings. Such testimony tothe use
of armour in Hibero-Norse Ireland Fas not, in
general, been taken very seriously by historians, but
the evidence of the arrowheads, although indirect,
suggests that it may have a greater basis 'n fact than
has hitherto been recognised.
Native Irish archery
‘There is little evidence to suggest thet the Irish
leamed to use the bow from the Norse, and archaco-
logical evidence for archery on native Irishsites ofthe
period is almost non-existent, Remarkably, however,
‘one of Europe’s finest early medieval longbows was
found in late 10th century context at the crannog of
Ballinderry, Co. Westmeath (Hencken 1935-37, 139,
225; Fig. &: D). The bow (Fig. 2), of yew wood, iscur-
rently 185em in length but one end is missing and its
original length was probably c.190cm. The crannog of
Ballindery, in the midlands of Ireland, produced a full
range of “classic” Viking weaponry: A sword, battle-
axe, two spearheads and a socketed knife were also
found and together with the bow, seem to provide a
graphic example of the extent to which Viking weap-
fonry could on occasion be adopted by the Irish.
Regardless of whether it was used by an Irish or @
‘Viking archer, there can be little doubt that this bow is
ultimately of Viking background.Military Archery in Medieval Ireland: Archaeology and History
‘The Anglo-Norman period (1169-c.1350)
Thus the bow can hardly have been unknown to
‘the Irish on the eve of the Anglo-Norman invasion of
1169-70. Nevertheless when confronted by Anglo-
‘Norman archers the Trish were, in the words of the
contemporary chronicler Giraldus Cambrensis, “part-
lysed and panic stricken by...the sudden wounds
inflicted by our arrows" (Scott & Martin 1978, 231).
Itmay be that what terrorised the Irish was not bows
in themselves, but the effectiveness with which they
‘were used by the Anglo-Normans. While the Norse
clearly used bows in Ireland, there is nothing to sug-
gest that they ever employed organised corps of
archers as the Anglo-Normans did, and thus the Irish
had probably never experienced anything like the
firepower of the Anglo-Norman archers,
Archers were an important part of most Norman
and Anglo-Norman armies. Hastings, in 1066, was
perhaps the first medieval European battle in which
archery demonstrably played a major role (Bradbury
1985, 25) and the bow was widely used in post-
Conquest England, It is thus not surprising that
archers were present in large numbers in the Anglo-
Nonman forces that invaded Ireland. Analysis of the
contingents for which detailed figures are given by
Giraldus Cambrensis (Scott & Martin 1978) reveals
that archers account for over 85% of the total.
Giraldus describes these archers as being “the flower
of the youth of Wales”, but unfortunately says very
litle about their role in the conquest of Ireland an
example of aristocratic chroniclers’ prejudice against
archers (who were invariably commoners) and in
favour of cavalry, noted by Bradbury (1985, 1-3, 40,
76) in medieval sources. Practically Giraldus’ only
‘comment on the archers concerns their role in pro-
tecting formations of milites from sudden Irish
attacks, and he makes a point of warning all future
‘commanders to ensure that large numbers of archers
‘were maintained in their forces (Scott & Martin
1978, 249),
However, the sheer numbers of archers involved
suggests that their role extended far beyond merely
protecting the cavalry. Against unarmoured oppo-
nents with no experience of archery, such as the Irish
were, the impact of large numbers of archers acting
in a coordinated manner could have been enormous.
Ina particularly relevant parallel, Strickland (1990,
192 & n.101) notesthe “devastating effect” of Anglo-
‘Norman archers against unarmoured Scots at the
battle of the Standard in 1138. The importance of
archers in the Anglo-Norman conquest of Ireland has
‘almost certainly been underestimated, and it seems
inconceivable that the Anglo-Normans would not
have exploited the obvious potential oftheir archers
in battle.
13th century Ireland
‘The continued importance of archery in the Anglo-
Irish colony in the 13th century is indicated by sub-
stantial archaeological evidence and documentary
evidence including records of craftsmen manufact-
uring bows and arrows and also, apparently, profes-
sional archers in Dublin (Martin & Connolly 1994,
23, 44, 57, 71, 72, 91, 105). A poem dated 1265
claims that the town of New Ross could muster 363
crossbowmen and 1200 other archers (Shields 1975-
* 76, 11.168-177). A lack of detailed information pre-
Chart 4. Irish arrowheads, late !20h/13th century: Proportions of ypes (by percentage of total)
50,
40}
30
20
|
49
355pin
cludes definitive statements about the relative impor-
tance of archers and other forms of troops in Anglo-
Irish forces of the 13th and early 14th centuries.
However, while archers were undoubtedly present in
‘most cases, the indications are that archery was sub-
‘ordinate in importance to cavalry (both heavy and
light) in the military economy of the Anglo-Irish
colony. During the 13th century, too, annalistic refer-
ences to individuals killed by Irish archers indicate
that for the first time the native Trish were making
widespread use of the bow.
Despite the prominence of archers, the Anglo-Nor-
‘man conquest does not appear to have led to the intro-
duction of new arrowhead types to Ireland; ifanything,
indeed, the range of arrowhead forms decreases.
Arrowheads are found in late 12th/13th century con-
texts on a wide range of sites, including many early
Anglo-Norman caste sites, although Dublin still pro-
vides the majority. By this date the Scandinavian types
(Types 1, 3 and 6) have almost entirely disappeared,
apart from a small number of late 12th century
survivals, and the assemblage is dominated by two
types, Types 4 and 7 (Chart 5). Curiously, the armour-
piercing Type 7 is actually at a slightly lower level of
popularity (49%) than inthe 1 1thand earlier 12th cen-
turies. Ths is unlikely to reflect any significant decline
inthe use of armour, however, but rather is due mainly
to a dramatic increase in popularity of Type 4. This
socketed, triangular-bladed arrowhead occurs in this
period in a distinctively Anglo-Norman form, with
particularly large, broad blades with marked midribs.
Arrowheads of this form have, in many cases, been
considered as hunting forms, but the contexts in which
they occur in Ireland, including several early castle
sites, pit in the strongest possible manner fo a mili-
tary function.
Welsh archers and the longbow
‘The Welsh archers who were so important in the
invasion of Ireland, and are graphically described by
Giraldus Cambrensis in other works, are important
figures in the military historiography of the Middle
‘Ages. Oman (1885) and Morris (1901) saw them as
crucial to the 14th century emergence of English
military archery, based on the longbow, as a potent
force that revolutionised warfare, not only in Britain
butin much of Europe, They claimed, firstly, that the
‘Welsh developed the longbow asa distinctive weapon
and secondly, that Edward I (1272-1307) recognised
the potential ofthe longbow as used by the Welsh and
introduced large numbers of Welsh archers into his
armies, while at the same time encouraging the use of
the longbow among the English peasantry.
‘This theory is based on entirely inadequate evi-
dence and must be rejected. Bradbury (1985, 71-79)
argues that Welsh archery has been given inordinate
prominence because of the influence of Giraldus”
‘writings, combined with the mistaken belief that
there is litle evidence for archery in 12th and 13th
century England. In fact, there is evidence for the
‘widespread use ofthe bow, particularly in warfare, in
Anglo-Norman England and there is little tc suggest
that Edward I ever used Welsh archers to teach the
English how to use the longbow (Prestwich 1972, 95-
97, 109-112; Prestwich 1988, 485). There is no evi-